Category Archives: Politics

The House of Commons has voted 382 in favour to 128 against to allow babies with genetic material from three people to be born. Scientists will be able to replace an egg’s defective mitochondrial DNA with healthy mitochondrial DNA from a female donor’s egg to eliminate genetically determined diseases such as muscular dystrophy. This is germline gene therapy which results in the genetic alteration being passed on to any children and their descendants. Britain is the first country to legalise the procedure.

If it was merely a question that the technique will be used to prevent children being born without a serious disabling disease it would be emotionally very difficult to argue against it simply because of the tremendous suffering which such diseases cause for both the children themselves and their families , whose lives are often turned upside down with the burden of caring with which they are left. Nonetheless, there are possible biological dangers of genetic manipulation because material is being introduced into a body which is foreign to it. They could perhaps cause cancerous tumours or result in rejection by the immune system.

The thin edge of the wedge

It is a certainty that if three-parent children are allowed it will be the thin end of the wedge which leads to much more radical alterations of a child’s genome. If gene replacement therapy is deemed ethically acceptable for preventing certain inherited diseases, there could be no absolute moral bar to any manipulation of genes, whether this is either be through the introduction of genetic material from one or more persons other than the parents into the egg or sperm or to methods of genetic engineering of humans which do not require the introduction of genetic material from a person who is not one of the parents. Moreover, it is probable that in the not too far distant future the manipulation of a person’s genes will be done either by direct restructuring of the person’s genetic material (perhaps through the re-writing of the code of a faulty gene) or the introduction of genetic material not taken from a human being but created artificially in a laboratory.

The effect on the children born of genetic manipulation.

Even at its most basic, such as the proposed replacement of mitochondrial DNA to prevent diseases such a muscular dystrophy, is it not likely that a child born from the procedure will feel a freak knowing that they are the product of three people’s DNA, and have serious doubts about their identity? Could they ever have the same relationship with their parents as a child conceived naturally? That is debatable because the recipient of the replacement DNA to correct a genetically determined illness might well view it simply as being equivalent to a transplant of a cornea or heart, although there would be the difference that the replacement DNA would be handed down the generations if the person receiving it had children.

But what if the genetic modification was much more radical, for example, determining elements of personality, intellect and physical appearance ? That would be much more likely to cause psychological disturbance in both the child and the parents. The child might feel they were not people in their own right but simply the toys of their parents, machines cut to a template consciously planned by another. If a child’s life did not go well, would not they be inclined to blame their parents for making the genetic choices that they did? Sadly, if genetically altered children do blame the parents, then it is all too easy to imagine that children would sue their parents for making what the children deemed to be bad choices.

The effect on the parents of children born of genetic manipulation

The parents could also have psychological issues. It is one thing having a child naturally who is born disabled, deformed or just turns out to be a disappointment in some way, quite another to have a child who disappoints after the parents have made decisions which helped to shape the child’s physical and mental qualities. The parents would run the risk of not only being disappointed ,but of knowing they were in part responsible for what the child was, something which could engender either feelings of guilt or the anger which can arise when someone knows they are responsible for something but cannot accept that reality. Again, the law could come into play with parents suing the scientists who had performed the genetic manipulation for misleading them.

The creation of a genetic divide in a society

If a society leaves genetic manipulation to the market with only those with the means to afford it receiving the manipulation, the difference between the haves and have-nots could become so large that there were objectively two grades of human beings in the society. The mere fact that some were genetically engineered and some were not could and probably would result in an elite which was biologically as well as materially and intellectually different from those who had undergone genetic manipulation, a difference which could translate into a caste system with the genetically manipulated only breeding amongst themselves . An alternative scenario could be the genetically unaltered have-nots – who would be in the large majority – seeing the elite as other than human and slaughtering them without compunction.

State interference

Would governments be able to resist insisting that characteristics such as intelligence were enhanced by the genetic manipulation of all members of a society whether or not the parents wanted it? A dictatorship could insist on certain characteristics being enhanced in all their population. Alternatively, the could deny such genetic manipulation to all but those with power . A third possibility would be, in Brave New World style, to use the technology to have people genetically altered so that there were people with different abilities and personality traits produced in different quantities.

Even a representative democracy might find itself driven to act in such an authoritarian way if it was feared that the society could not compete with other societies which adopted government inspired genetic changes.

Genetic manipulation after conception

Genetic manipulation will not stop at point of conception. As the technology advances we can expect to see opportunities for much genetic manipulation from the foetus to the aged human. However, this would be Somatic gene therapy which would be introduced into non-sex cells and would not , unlike germline gene therapy, become part of the person’s genome and consequently could not be passed on to any children or their descendants.

In the case of those old enough to give their consent to somatic gene manipulation much of the psychological problem which exists with genetic manipulation of the sperm and egg is removed because adults, unless they are mentally handicapped or living in a society where the state forces all to undergo such procedures, they will be able to make the decision for themselves as to whether they have such a procedure. Even if they do not like the result of their gene manipulation they would not be in a worse psychological situation than someone who has had a replacement organ or plastic surgery which does not give them what they anticipated.

The dangers of a rapid genetic alteration within a population

Rapidly changing the proportions of characteristics in a population could damage the viability of the society. Very little is understood about the importance of the distribution of different qualities and abilities within a society. Suppose a society opts to rapidly increase the IQ of its people. A society of highly intelligent people might not work because homo sapiens naturally forms hierarchies and if everyone is highly intelligent this might make the creation of a stable hierarchy impossible. . Or suppose personality traits such as aggression, caution and extroversion could be manipulated. If the choice was left to parents the favouring of one of such traits might make a society too aggressive or too placid.

What can be done to guard against the worst possibilities?

As genetic manipulation of humans will undoubtedly spread rapidly throughout the world, there will be no realistic way of preventing individuals from availing themselves of the technology short of closing the borders and allowing no one to travel out of the country to have the manipulation done abroad with regular checks on every individual to make sure there was no illegal operations being done

If gene manipulation is banned in one country, but foreign travel is not, banned those who can afford it and think it worthwhile will go abroad to have the procedure . It would be possible for a country to make genetic manipulation a crime regardless of where the act took place. But that would open up a can of worms. The manipulation would have already have taken place. The altered human being, whether child or adult, would exist. In the case of a child, the individual would not have broken the law because the decision to have the procedure would not have been theirs. What would the state do? Imprison for life every adult who had broken the law? Take every genetically altered child into care? A ban on individuals seeking gene manipulation would be a non-starter. If it is widely seen a desirable thing, the only thing which might stop gene manipulation would be a high proportion of procedures resulting in serious problems such as tumours or deformities dissuading most of the public against it.

Guarding against state enforced gene manipulation is a more practical proposition, but only in countries with some regard for constitutionality and the law in general. It would be possible for such countries to include in their constitutions absolute bars on any state imposed genetic manipulation.

Seventeen people have been murdered in the two terrorist attacks in Paris (between 7-9th January 2015). Ten were journalists, including some of France’s leading cartoonists, working for the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. To them can be added two policemen, one policewomen and four members of the general public who happened to be unlucky enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. The attacks were made on the Charlie Hebdo offices and the Jewish supermarket Hyper Cacher. The policewoman was shot in a separate incident.

The terrorist acts were coordinated to produce maximum effect. That on Charlie Hebdo was by the brothers Said and Cherif Kouachi , who were of Algerian ancestry. A third brother Mourad Hamyd aged 18 was at school at the time of the Charlie Hebdo attack and has spoken to but not been detained by the police. The attack on a Jewish supermarket was undertaken by a Mailian Amedy Coulibaly. He also killed a policewoman before his attack on the Jewish supermarket. Coulibaly’s wife, Hayat Boumeddiene, who is of Algerian ancestry, is thought to be another Muslim fanatic with homicidal tendencies. She is believed to have fled to Syria after the shooting of the policewoman.

Unless you are a particularly stupid and self-deluding liberal and have either persuaded yourself that this was a black op and the killers were agents of the wicked old West or have fallen back on that old liberal favourite that the killers are not true Muslims – congratulations to the Telegraph’s Tim Stanley for being so quick off the mark with that piece of shrieking inanity – you will think these are Muslim terrorists. (The next time you encounter someone spinning the “not true Muslims” line ask them whether the Crusaders of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries were Christians).

Sadly there are many liberals who have not learnt the lesson dealt out by these atrocities. It is true that there has been almost complete condemnation of the killings by the liberal elites around the Western world, but one wonders how unqualified and sincere their regret and anger is. Apart from the liberal apologist mantras “not true Muslims”, “Just a tiny minority of Muslims” and “Islam is the religion of peace” being much in evidence, there has been a disagreeable media eagerness to portray the killers as sophisticated military beasts. Here is a prime example from the Telegraph:

“They wear army-style boots and have a military appearance and manner. One of the men wears a sand-coloured ammunition vest apparently stuffed with spare magazines. Some reports suggest that an attacker was also carrying a rocket-propelled grenade launcher.

“The men attacked the magazine’s headquarters with clinical precision, killing their victims and then shooting two police officers in the street outside.

“Amateur footage shows them using classic infantry tactics. They move along the street outside the office working as a pair: one advances while the other gives cover.

“Instead of spraying automatic gunfire, they fire two aimed shots at each target – a pattern known as “double-tap” firing – thereby conserving their ammunition.”

The truth is that the attackers did not behave like highly trained soldiers, and some of the reporting was simply wrong, for example, after the slaughter the killers, as was widely reported , did not walk calmly back to the stolen car they were using but ran. When they abandoned the car one of the killers left his identity card behind. After the murders at Charlie Hebdo the two killers drove around like headless chickens hijacking cars and holding up petrol stations to obtain food and water. If they had really been cold, calculating beasts they would either have stayed where they were after the Charlie Hebdo killings and died in a firefight with the French police or arranged matters so that they had a hiding place to go to and would carried things like a little food and water with them. The widespread media depiction of them as quasi-military figures glamourized and sanitised what they were.

The British political mainstream response

But it would be wrong to say nothing changed in Britain after the attacks. The Ukip leader Nigel Farage broke new ground for a mainstream British politician in modern Britain by speaking of a fifth column of people who hate us within Britain.

“There is a very strong argument that says that what happened in Paris is a result – and we’ve seen it in London too – is a result I’m afraid of now having a fifth column living within these countries.

“We’ve got people living in these countries, holding our passports, who hate us.

“Luckily their numbers are very, very small but it does make one question the whole really gross attempt at encouraged division within society that we have had in the past few decades in the name of multiculturalism.”

This was predictably condemned by David Cameron, a man who incredibly still believes Turkey within the EU would be of great benefit to all concerned, despite the anger and dismay in Britain about mass immigration generally making the prospect of 70 million Turkish Muslims having a right to move freely within the EU certain to be utterly dismaying to most native Britons. Interestingly, a would-be successor to Cameron as Tory leader, Liam Fox, edged a long way towards reality in an article for the Sunday Telegraph:

“All those who do not share their fundamentalist views are sworn enemies, whether Muslim or non-Muslim, Arab or non-Arab. It is the first lesson that we must understand – they hate us all because of who we are, our views, our values and our history. Western liberal apologists who tell us that the violence being directed at us is all of our own making not only fail to understand reality, but put us at increased risk.

“We must understand that there are fanatics who cannot be reconciled to our values and who will attempt to destroy us by any means possible. They are at war with us. They do not lack the intent to kill us, merely the means to do so, and our first response must be to deny them that capability. Sometimes that will require lethal force.”

“The Deputy Prime Minister hit out after Mr Farage suggested the attack on the offices of a satirical magazine should lead to questions about the UK’s “gross policy of multiculturalism”.

“I am dismayed that Nigel Farage immediately thinks, on the back of the bloody murders that we saw on the streets of Paris yesterday, his first reflex is to make political points,” Mr Clegg said during his weekly phone-in on LBC radio.

“If this does come down, as it appears to be the case, to two individuals who perverted the cause of Islam to their own bloody ends, let’s remember that the greatest antidote to the perversion of that great world religion are law-abiding British Muslims themselves.

“And to immediately … imply that many, many British Muslims who I know feel fervently British but also are very proud of their Muslim faith are somehow part of the problem rather than part of the solution is firmly grabbing the wrong end of the stick.”

Such condemnations are of little account because Farage has spoken an obvious truth and the general public will understand that. The promotion of multiculturalism has been generally pernicious because it wilfully creates serious divisions within a society, but is unreservedly toxic in the case of Islam because Muslims, violent and non-violent, believe in the supremacy of their religion.

The change of language by public figures particularly politicians is of the first importance because the general public need a lead to be given where a matter is contentious. In these politically correct times it is particularly necessary because the native population of Britain have been thoroughly intimidated by the totalitarian application of political correctness which has resulted in people saying non-pc things losing their jobs, being arrested and, in a growing number of cases , being brought before a criminal court to face charges.

Once things forbidden by political correctness are said by public figures change could be very fast. More and more people will embrace the forbidden words and ideas and, like a dam bursting, the flood of non-pc voices will overwhelm the politically correct restraints on speech and writing.

A tiny proportion of Muslims

The claim is routinely made by the politically correct Western elites and “moderate” Muslims that those committing terrorist atrocities are a tiny proportion of Muslims. That is pedantically true but unimportant, because it is to misunderstand the dynamic of terrorism which rests on a pyramid of commitment and support for the cause. At the top are the leaders. Below them are those willing to carry out terrorist acts. Supporting them will be those who make the bombs, acquire guns and so on. Below them will come those who are willing to raise funds through criminal behaviour such as extortion and drug dealing and administer punishment – anything from death to beatings – to those within the ambit of the group who are deemed to have failed to do what they were told or worse betrayed the group. Next will come those willing to provide safe houses for people and weaponry. Then there are those willing to provide information and come out on the streets to demonstrate at the drop of a hat. At the bottom of conscious supporters will come the “I disagree with their methods but…” people. They say they support the ends of the terrorists but do not support terrorist acts. This presses the terrorist demands forward because the public will remember their support for the ends and forget the means because it is the ends which engage the emotions . Those who are familiar with the Provisional IRA during the troubles in Northern Ireland will recognise this character list with ease. Moreover, even those from a community from which terrorists hail who refuse to offer conscious support will aid the terrorists’ cause by providing in Mao’s words “the ocean in which terrorists swim”.

There are differences in the detail of how terrorist organisations act, for example, PIRA operated in a quasi-military structure with a central command while Muslim terrorism is increasingly subcontracted to individuals who act on their own. But however a terrorist movement is organised the general sociological structure of support described above is the same whenever there is a terrorist group which is ostensibly promoting the interests of a sizeable minority and that minority has, justified or not, a sense of victimhood which can be nourished by the terrorists . Where the terrorists can offer a cause which promises not merely the gaining of advantages by the group but of the completion of some greater plan its potency is greatly enhanced. Marxism had the communist Utopia and the sense of working towards final end of history; the great religions offer, through the attainment of some beatific afterlife, the favour of God’s will for their society and the completion of God’s plan. Islam has those qualities in spades.

All this means that though the active terrorists may be few , the effectiveness of the terrorist machine relies on large numbers who will offer some degree of support. Consequently, the fact that the number of Muslims committing terrorist acts may be a tiny proportion of the total Muslim population is irrelevant. What matters is the pyramid of support which at its broadest will include all Muslims because it is the total population which provides “the ocean in which the terrorist may swim”.

Importantly, it is not a case of just the poor and the ignorant only holding such views. Young educated Muslims are if anything more enthusiastic than the average British Muslim to have Sharia Law with 40% in favour and no less than 32% favouring killing for Islam if the religion is deemed to have been slighted in some way. All of this points to a considerable reservoir of support for the ends of Muslim terrorists if not always the means. Many Muslims in the West would not be prepared to engage in violent acts themselves , but they would quite happily accept privileges for their religion and themselves won by the sword.

How should the West react to Muslim terrorism?

How should the West react? In principle it should be simple. There is no need for gratuitous abuse, no need for laboured reasons why Islam is this or that. All that needs to be recognised is that Islam is incompatible with liberal democracy because in its moral choices it is a belief system which runs directly counter to liberal democracy and has as its end game the subjugation of the entire world.

What effective action can Western governments do to prevent the gradual erosion of the values upon which their societies are built? ? There are three general possibilities. These are:

Logically, the ideal for any Western government committed to their country’s national interest would be to expel all Muslims from their territory as a matter of policy with no legal process allowed. That is because (1) there is no way of knowing who will become a terrorist; (2) a large population of Muslims provides the “ocean in which the terrorist swims “ and (3) any action disadvantaging Muslims short of expulsion will breed terrorists.

A less comprehensive programme would be to block all further Muslim immigration, ban all Muslim religious schools, cease funding any Muslim organisations, deport any Muslim without British citizenship, remove the British citizenship of any Muslim with dual nationality and deport them back to the country for which they hold citizenship. The question of legal aid would not arise because their would be no appeal allowed as the policy deals in absolutes: you are a Muslim either without British citizenship or with dual nationality and you qualify for deportation . The difficulty with that set of policies is it would allow a large population to remain within the West and would create resentment amongst that population which could lead to terrorism.

The least dynamic government action would be to implement programme 2 but allow any Muslim with British citizenship or long term residency to appeal expulsion through the courts. That would have the disadvantages of programme 2 plus the added opportunity for endless delay as appeals are heard and re-heard. Such a system would also require legal aid to be given if the judicial process was to be sound.

Will anything like this happen? Most improbable at least in the short term. The West is ruled by elites who worship at the altar of political correctness. Theirs in a fantasy world in which human beings are interchangeable and institutions such as the nation state are seen as outmoded relics as homo sapiens marches steadily towards the sunlit uplands of a world moulded and controlled by the rigid totalitarian dicta of political correctness .

For such people the mindset of anyone willing to die for an idea is simply alien to them. Even more remote to these elites is the belief that there is an afterlife which is much to be preferred to life on Earth. Most damaging of all they cannot conceive of people who have no interest in compromise and consequently will be remorseless in their pursuit of their goal. The liberal mistakenly believes that simply by contact with the West will the values the liberal espouses be transferred to the rest of the world. This incredibly arrogant fantasy can be seen at its most potent in their attitude to China, which is quietly but efficiently creating a world empire by buying influence, and in the Middle East and North Africa where the attempt to transfer liberal values by a mixture of force and material aid has been a shrieking failure which mocks the liberal every second of every day.

Because of such ideas Western elites are only too likely to keep fudging the issue and conceding, not necessarily right away, more and more privileges to Muslins within their societies. They will also probably greatly increase funding for “moderate” Muslims to enter Schools and Mosques to teach Western values. This will drive many young Muslims towards extremism not away from it because however the teaching of British or Western values is conducted it will inevitably be seen as a criticism of Islam. Older Muslims will also be angered at such teaching of their children. Anything the liberal is likely to do will simply be throwing petrol on the fire.

What is required is the replacement of the present elites either by removing them from power or by them changing their tune utterly. The first is improbable in Britain because of the structure of the voting system which hugely protects the status quo and a complicit mainstream media which shares the devotion to political correctness and manipulates access to favour parties and politicians which play the politically correct game.

But the changing of political tune is a real possibility because liberals are starting to get truly frightened as they realise things could get seriously out of control if Muslim terrorism continues to occur. There is also the fact that white liberals recognise in some part of their minds that what they ostensibly espouse – the joy of diversity – is bogus. This can be seen by how they so often arrange their own lives to ensure that they live in very white and in England very English circumstances. The massive white flight away from places such as inner London and Birmingham bears stark witness to this. Being capable of the greatest self-delusion they explain their hypocrisy by telling themselves that this is only because the great project of producing a country, nay a world, fit for the politically correct to love in, has tragically not been fully realised yet because the outmoded non-pc ideas and emotions still exists as people have not yet been educated to see the error of their primitive ways such as believing in the nation state and a homogenous society. But in their heart of hearts they know they would dread to live in the conditions to which they have sanguinely consigned the white working class.

Liberals may also have the beginnings of a terror that their permitting of mass immigration, the promotion of multiculturalism and the suppression of dissent from their own native populations will soon come to be called by its true name, treason. All these fears will act as a motor to drive the liberal elites to become more and more realistic about what needs to be done.

The question every non-Muslim in the West needs to answer is this, do you really believe that if Muslims become the majority in a Western country they will not do what Islam has done everywhere else in the world where they are in the majority and at best place Islam within a greatly privileged position within the state or at worst create a Muslim theocracy? Even Turkey, the liberals’ favourite example of a Muslim majority secular democracy, is rapidly moving towards a position when it cannot meaningfully be called a democracy or secular as Islamic parties gain more and more leverage and the Prime Minister Erdogan becomes ever more autocratic.

If a person’s answer to the question I posed is no, then they need to answer another question, do I want to live in such a society? If their answer is no then they must be willing to fight for their way of life or the “religion of peace” will change their society beyond recognition.

When I hear someone describing Islam as the “religion of peace” I am irresistibly reminded of the aliens in the film Independence Day emerging from their spaceship yelling “We come in peace” before blasting every human in sight. The white liberals who peddle into the “religion of peace” propaganda should be constantly called upon to explain why it is that a “religion of peace” can be so unfailingly successful in attracting people who say they subscribe to it yet are unremittingly cruel and violent.

I sense that political correctness has passed its high point. Like all totalitarian creeds, it is in reality failing when it is seemingly at its most dominant. That is because all totalitarian creeds become ever more obviously detached from reality as they invariably become ever more extreme as the practitioners and enforcers of the ideology compete to show who is the purest ideologue. It is also catching more and more people who may have thought themselves safe from suffering any penalty from being non-pc in its clutches, for example, the Wigan FC chairman Dave Whelan, not least because of the growing ubiquity of digital devices available to record both the spoken and written word, so that even private utterances or writings are vulnerable to hacking, deliberate surreptitious recording or in the case of that which is written , the discovery of thoughts by third parties.

There has also been a considerable change in the past twelve months in the rhetoric on three vital matters: immigration, withdrawal from the EU and the political representation of England within a devolved UK. All have become much more in line with reality, both social and political. The change in the case of immigration is especially striking. None of this has as yet been translated into practical action, but honest talk about subjects for long treated as beyond the Pale by mainstream politicians and media is encouraging and is an essential prelude to meaningful action. The more the rhetoric moves towards reality, the harder will it be for the political elite to control matters. There is a genuine possibility of both an IN/Out EU referendum in 2017 and English Votes for English Laws after the 2015 General Election.

An EU referendum

Many of those supposedly in favour of the UJK leaving the EU are fearful or say they are that a referendum in the near future would be lost and talk of years of preparation of the electorate before a referendum is held. Richard North is a prime proponent of this argument. It holds no water for two reasons. First, if Britain remains within the EU we shall become ever more entwined in its coils to the extent that Britain would l find it very difficult to legally leave the EU. This process is already well in hand as the recent signing up to 35 Justice measures, including opting in again to the European Arrest Warrant, demonstrates. This has happened despite the profound implications of the handing of such power to the EU. Why was there no referendum? Because the European Union 2011 Act, only makes the holding of a referendum necessary on the granting of entirely new powers to the EU and/ or extending existing powers if the powers are part of an EU treaty concluded after the Act passing into law in 2011.

This failure to refer very important transfers of power to a referendum is no accident. There are no new treaties on the horizon for the very simple reason that the Eurofanatics fear they would l lose any referenda on another treaty and they cannot avoid such referenda because some countries such as France, the Republic of Ireland and now the UK require a referendum on a treaty to transfer further powers to Brussels. (The UK law could be repealed or amended to restrict the opportunities for a referendum, but that is unlikely because Ed Miliband has committed himself to it).

The second reason not to shy away from a referendum in the near future is simple. Suppose the worst happens and the referendum is lost . That is not the end of the matter. Rather it is the beginning as the Scottish referendum aftermath has demonstrated. A referendum would provide opportunities to put forward the case for coming out in depth in the mainstream media over a sustained period and to energise the electorate. That would provide the platform for future IN/OUT referenda. By its nature nothing is ever permanently settled in a democracy.

English votes for English laws

Even in its purist form with only English seat MPs voting on English laws this is not a permanent solution, but it is a staging post to an English Parliament. Once established it will quickly become clear that there will be perpetual dissent over what are English-only laws, squabbles over the continuing existence of the Barnett Formula and the practical difficulty of having a House of Commons where the majorities for UK business and English business might be different, for example, a UK wide majority for Labour or Labour led coalition, either relying for MPs from seats outside of England for their majority and a Tory majority in England.

The Tory and LibDem proposals put forward by William Hague today in publication The Implications of Devolution for England are messy with two of the three Tory options fudging matters by not restricting the proposal and the voting on of English-only legislation to English-seat MP and the LibDem proposal being a blatant attempt to smuggle in proportional representation by the back door by suggesting that an English Grand Committee be set up with its members selected to represent the proportion of votes each party . They also have a superb recipe for balkanising England by allowing different levels of representation on demand with differing powers if a city, council or region seek them. Labour have not put any proposals formally forward because they refused to join discussions on fitting England into the devolution mix. I will deal with the subject in greater depth in a separate essay.

The most dangerous general global threats are plausibly these in this order

Mass immigration.

Islam – It is a simple fact that serious unrest is found wherever there are large numbers of Muslims. When I hear Muslims and their liberal supporters proclaiming that Islam is the religion of peace I am reminded irresistibly of the film Independence Day in which the aliens emerge from their spaceship proclaiming “we come in peace” before blasting everyone in sight to smithereens.

3 Uncontrolled technology, which leaves the developed world in particular but increasingly the world generally, very vulnerable to suddenly being left without vital services if computer systems fail naturally or through cyber attacks. The glitch over the UK air traffic control gives a hint of how vulnerable we are.

The most dangerous specific threats to global peace and stability are:

– The heightened tension between China and the rest of the far East (especially Japan) as a consequence of China’s flexing of territorial ambitions.

– China’s extraordinary expanding shadow world empire which consists of both huge investment in the first world and de facto colonial control in the developing world.

– The growing power of India which threatens Pakistan.

– The increasing authoritarianism of the EU due to both the natural impetus towards central control and the gross mistake of the Euro. The Eurofanatics are playing with fire in their attempts to lure border states of Russia into the EU whilst applying seriously damaging sanctions to Russia. It is not in the West’s interest to have a Russia which feels threatened or denied its natural sphere of influence.

– The ever more successful (at least in the short run) attempt of post-Soviet Russia to re-establish their suzerainty over the old Soviet Empire.

The think-tank British Future has recently published the report How to talk about immigration based on research conducted by ICM, Ipsos MORI and YouGov. The report purports to provide a blueprint for both the pros and antis in the immigration debate to manage the subject most effectively in public discussion. This is not something which they achieve because they have bought into the internationalist agenda, viz: “Some three or four generations on from Windrush, it is now a settled and irreversible fact that we are a multi-ethnic society. Managing immigration effectively and fairly in the public interest should and does matter to Britons from different ethnic backgrounds. We should be suspicious of approaches that sharply polarise British citizens along racial lines, in whatever direction”.

Nonetheless the research does have much of interest. One finding is truly startling. Faced with the question “The government should insist that all immigrants should return to the countries they came from, whether they’re here legally or illegally” the result was Agree 25%, disagree 52% and neither 23%. (P17 of the report). In addition, many of those who said no to forced repatriation were also firm supporters of strong border controls and restrictive immigration policies.

The fact that 25% of the population have overcome their fear of falling foul of the pc police and say that they do not merely want immigration stopped but sent into reverse is stunning. Moreover, because political correctness has taken such an intimidating place in British society it is reasonable to assume that a substantial number of those who said they disagreed did so simply out of fear of being accused of racism.

The obverse of the immigration coin was shown by the question “In an increasingly borderless world, we should welcome anyone who wants to come to Britain and not deter them with border controls” (P16 of the report). The results were 14% agree, 67% disagree and 19% don’t know.

That only 14% support such a policy compared to the 25% who wished for forced repatriation is striking in itself, but it is even better for the opponents of immigration than it looks for two reasons. First, the 14% of those who agreed with the question will be the honest figure because to say that you want open borders carries with it no penalties from the pc police and will gain the person brownie points amongst the politically correct elite and their auxiliaries. Second, as already mentioned, the 25% of those wanting forced repatriation of all immigrants will understate the true position because a significant proportion of those questioned with be lying out of fear.

The report also shows that older voters are more likely to be those who are most strongly opposed to immigration (P11 of the report). That is important because older voters are the most likely to vote.

Taking all that into account it is reasonable to assume that a referendum with the question “Do you wish to end mass immigration?” would result in a solid probably overwhelming YES vote.

These facts should persuade politicians that they would risk nothing if they move much further to restrict immigration than they have already done and in so doing would gain considerable extra electoral support.

This may well happen. Public rhetoric about immigration is rapidly hardening There will come a tipping point where the rhetoric has departed so far from the politically correct position that serious action to restrict immigration will occur because the stretch between rhetoric and action will become too great to sustain in a society where governments are elected.

A party political bidding process on the subject of immigration is already taking place and there will come a point where serious action has to follow or there will be a very real chance that either one or more of the mainstream parties will become irrelevant and be superseded, or members of the mainstream parties will wrest control of these parties from their pc indoctrinated leadership and adopt a policy on immigration closer to what the public wants.

The other important effect of greater political honesty in political utterances about immigration is that it makes it much easier for people generally to speak openly about their feelings on the subject and to lobby for radical action. In turn this will feed the desire of politicians to gain electoral credibility by being ever former in their immigration policies. Indeed, the only reason that the present immigration has been allowed to develop is because the subject has been effectively wiped off the public debate agenda since the 1970s.

Like this:

There are many aspects of modern charities which run contrary what is still, despite all the bad publicity charities have had in recent years, the general public’s idea of what a charity should be; an organisation which is doing good works by raising money from individuals, is the reverse of self-serving and a morally good thing.

There is much dislike about modern charities. They are frequently incompetently run, often too much of a charity’s income goes on administration, especially the pay of the senior staff, embezzlement by the staff of charities is too frequent for comfort and larger charities often take much of their funding from the state. However, those weaknesses are not the subject of this piece. What I am concerned with here is the political aspect of charities in Britain, an aspect which seems to loom ever larger.

Charities in Britain are very often overtly political, using much of their income to lobby politicians, pay for what are essentially political adverts and research which is no better than propaganda. The Charity Commission’s rules forbid charities being set up for a political purpose , charities campaigning for a political party or charities campaigning for a political end which does not accord with the declared purposes of the charity. Charities may lobby politicians and engage in campaigns which are inherently political to their heart’s content provided they observe these rules. The full Charity Commission Guidance on political activity by charities can be found here . In summary it is :

To be a charity an organisation must be established for charitable purposes only, which are for the public benefit. An organisation will not be charitable if its purposes are political.

Campaigning and political activity can be legitimate and valuable activities for charities to undertake.

However, political campaigning, or political activity, as defined in this guidance, must be undertaken by a charity only in the context of supporting the delivery of its charitable purposes. Unlike other forms of campaigning, it must not be the continuing and sole activity of the charity. (Section D5 provides a fuller explanation.)

There may be situations where carrying out political activity is the best way for trustees to support the charity’s purposes. A charity may choose to focus most, or all, of its resources on political activity for a period. The key issue for charity trustees is the need to ensure that this activity is not, and does not become, the reason for the charity’s existence.

Charities can campaign for a change in the law, policy or decisions (as detailed in this guidance in section C4) where such change would support the charity’s purposes. Charities can also campaign to ensure that existing laws are observed.

However, a charity cannot exist for a political purpose, which is any purpose directed at furthering the interests of any political party, or securing or opposing a change in the law, policy or decisions either in this country or abroad.

In the political arena, a charity must stress its independence and ensure that any involvement it has with political parties is balanced. A charity must not give support or funding to a political party, nor to a candidate or politician.

A charity may give its support to specific policies advocated by political parties if it would help achieve its charitable purposes. However, trustees must not allow the charity to be used as a vehicle for the expression of the political views of any individual trustee or staff member (in this context we mean personal or party political views).

As with any decision they make, when considering campaigning and political activity charity trustees must carefully weigh up the possible benefits against the costs and risks in deciding whether the campaign is likely to be an effective way of furthering or supporting the charity’s purposes.

When campaigning, charity trustees must comply not only with charity law, but other civil and criminal laws that may apply. Where applicable they should also comply with the Code of the Advertising Standards Authority.

A charity can campaign using emotive or controversial material, where this is lawful and justifiable in the context of the campaign. Such material must be factually accurate and have a legitimate evidence base.

The principles of charity campaigning and political activity are the same, whether the activity is carried out in the United Kingdom or overseas.

These rules allow charities to quite legally act as campaign groups and lobbyists and in practice charities often get away with throwing over even the mild restraints that the Charity Commission imposes.

Why should their politicisation be a concern? Because such behaviour undermines the very idea of a charity, which generally is to pursue unambiguously beneficent ends. Bring the pursuit of political ends into the picture and the moral purity of the charity is tarnished. I would also doubt whether the general public would want the state the state to provide privileges such as tax breaks for charities while they press their own political agendas.

Which charities now existing should have their status removed?

Where a charity receives a substantial part of its income from state bodies, as many of the larger ones now do, the use of the money to campaign for a political end is doubly unwarranted, for charities which receive money from public funds are not really charities at all but subcontracted arms of the state. Receipt of state money should mean no charitable status. (The practice of politicking is strong amongst charities which receive substantial funds from the public purse).

The donation of money by non-state bodies such as limited companies or organisations which are not commercial enterprises , for example trade unions, should be banned where the donations are such as to promote the interests of the donor.

Individual donations should be left to the discretion of the donor, but the charity should be legally obliged to provide the name of any donor providing more than 5% of a charity’s donations in any financial year, together with details of the person’s background including their political and commercial interest if they have them.

Some types of charity are too inescapably political to be charities. These include those concerned with human rights, immigration, race relations and charities which promote the cause of particular groups (especially ethnic minorities).

Charities which support criminality either directly through or indirectly, for example, by supplying goods and services which release funds to be spent on criminal activities such as terrorism. Good examples are Islamic charities which overtly or covertly support terrorism. There is also the problem of ostensibly legitimate mainstream charities donating to other charities which have links to terrorists.

Think Tanks which do nothing but produce reports and papers for discussion should not be charities because by definition they are not providing active relief of suffering or directly promoting something which is socially valuable.

Charitable status should only be granted for charitable work undertaken in the UK. The British taxpayer should not subsidise by the granting of tax relief work which does not benefit Britons.

Whether or not a charity currently pursuing political ends under the present rules receives money from the state, they should no longer have charitable status if they insist on political campaigning. They should sail under their true colours as political organisations and be subject to the same rules as other non-charitable bodies. Such organisations could be profit-making or non-profit-making and be treated as other political organisations which are not charities are treated.

None of the exclusions I have proposed mean that people will not be able to donate funds to whatever cause they wish to donate. All it means is that such donations will go to organisations which no longer have the tax privileges or the moral status of a charity.

What work should charities do?

They should be reformed to be what the general public thinks a charity should be, a beneficent organisation giving active help to people and other indisputable good causes which draws its money not from the state but from private donations drawn only from individuals. To this end charities should exist simply to provide goods and services to ameliorate the deficiency that they ostensibly were founded to lessen, whether that be the alleviation of an obvious need such as poverty or sickness or to provide something which is not an absolute need but which will be socially valuable such as specialist types of education such as music schools.

What would this mean in practice? Let me give a few examples.

1. Oxfam would cease to engage in political campaigning and concentrate solely on providing help to the poor.

2. Medical charities would cease to lobby for more government spending on medicine and concentrate solely on providing treatment and support to sufferers.

3. The RSPCA and the RSPB would confine themselves to providing for the welfare of animals by funding care for abandoned animals and purchasing land to provide habitat for specific wild species .

The advantages of these changes

The removal of politics from charities and of the state subcontracting to charities would change the relationship between the public and charities for the better, because the reality of charities would then be much closer to both their traditional role and the present day perception of what a charity should be in the public mind. That would be likely to increase donations.

Charities would be much less susceptible to political or commercial influence if they do not take money from the state or private corporations.

The changes would remove large swathes of charities which are manifestly not in the national interest . Any work overseas would not be classed as charitable and the army of human rights, immigration and ethnic minority charities would cease to be charities.

The type of person attracted to charity work would probably change significantly if the political aspect was removed. The charities which were left would have to concentrate on providing practical aid to the causes which they espouse. People would join because they wanted to be ministering directly to ends of the charity.

Like this:

The Commons Select Committee (CSC) on Education has produced a report on the underachievement of white British working-class children. This ostensibly highlights the poor educational performance of white British children who are eligible for free meals (FSM) compared to those in receipt of FSM from ethnic minority groups such as those of Indian and Chinese ancestry. I say ostensibly because there are severe flaws in methodology. These are:

The definition of white British is far from simple. The report distinguishes between Irish, traveller of Irish heritage, Gypsy/Roma and Any other white background (see CSC table 2 page 13). The Any other white background is the largest. It is not clear from the report how the white British were defined, for example , a child of white immigrants might well consider his or herself white British. Who would whether they were or were not British?

The numbers of some of the ethnic minority groups cited are small, for example, at the end of Key Stage 4 (the end of GCSE courses) in 2013 there were only 168 Chinese in the country who pupils who qualified for FSM. (see CSC table 2 page 13).

3. The use of FSM as a proxy for working-class means that white British apples are being compared with variously coloured ethnic minority oranges. Most importantly the use of FSM means that the British white working-class as a whole is not represented , but only the poorest section of it. Hence, the general treatment in the media of the report, that it shows the white working-class to be falling behind ethnic minorities, is grossly misleading. The report recognises this:

…measuring working class performance in education through FSM data can be misleading. The Centre for Research in Race and Education (CRRE) drew our attention to a mismatch between the proportion of children who were eligible for free school meals and the proportion of adults who would self-define as working class:17 in 2012/13, 15% of pupils at the end of key stage 4 were known to be eligible for free school meals,18 compared with 57% of British adults who defined themselves as ‘working class’ as part of a survey by the National Centre for Social Research.The CRRE warned that projecting the educational performance of a small group of economically deprived pupils onto what could otherwise be understood to be a much larger proportion of the population had “damaging consequences” on public understanding of the issue. The logical result of equating FSM with working class was that 85% of children were being characterised as middle class or above.

The white British group will be overwhelmingly drawn from the most deprived part of that group’s population, while many of the ethnic minority groups held up as superior to the white British children , will have a large component of people who are not drawn from the lower social reaches of their society, but are poor simply because they are either first generation immigrants or the children of first generation immigrants and have not established themselves in well paid work – think of all the tales the mainstream media and politicians regale the British with about immigrant graduates doing menial jobs. These parents will both have more aspiration for their children and a greater ability to assist their children with their schoolwork.

The range of those qualifying for FSM is extensive and there is considerable complexity resulting from pupils going in and out of the qualifying criteria, viz:

(Para 12 of the report) . Of the Children are eligible for free school meals if their parents receive any of the following payments:

Income Support

• Income-based Jobseekers Allowance

• Income-related Employment and Support Allowance

• Support under Part VI of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999

• the guaranteed element of State Pension Credit

• Child Tax Credit (provided they are not also entitled to Working Tax Credit and

have an annual gross income of no more than £16,190)

• Working Tax Credit run-on—paid for 4 weeks after they stop qualifying for

Working Tax Credit

• Universal Credit

13. A report for the Children’s Society noted that the criteria for FSM mean that parents working 16 or more hours per week (24 hours for couples from April 2012) lose their entitlement to FSM since they are eligible for working tax credit; as a result there are around 700,000 children living in poverty who are not entitled to receive free school meals. In addition, not all those who may be eligible for FSM register for it; a recent report for the Department for Education estimated under-registration to be 11% in 2013. This figure varies across the country: in the North East under-registration is estimated to be 1%, compared to 18% in the East of England and 19% in the South East.

4. Greater resources, both material advantages and better quality staff, are being put into schools which have a very large ethnic minority component than schools which are predominantly filled with white British children. This is occurring both as a matter of deliberate government policy and through not-for-profit corporations such as charities.

Government policies are things such as the pupil premium . This is paid to schools for each pupil who qualifies under these criteria:

In the 2014 to 2015 financial year, schools will receive the following funding for each child registered as eligible for free school meals at any point in the last 6 years:

£1,300 for primary-aged pupils

£935 for secondary-aged pupils

Schools will also receive £1,900 for each looked-after pupil who:

has been looked after for 1 day or more

was adopted from care on or after 30 December 2005, or left care under:

a special guardianship order

a residence order

The amounts involved for a school can be considerable. Suppose that a secondary school with 1,000 children has 40% of its pupils qualifying for FSM. That would bring an additional £374,000 to the school in this financial year. At present £2.5 billion is being spent on the pupil premium.

According to a Dept of Education (DoE) investigation published in 2013, Evaluation of Pupil Premium Research Report , a good deal of this money is being spent on ethnic minorities and those without English as a first language (see tables 2.1 and 2.2, pages27 and 30) . The pupil premium can be used to provide extra staff, better staff, improved equipment after school activities and so on.

Schools can allocate the Pupil Premium money at their discretion and often make the identification of where money has gone next to impossible because they do things such as merging the Pupil Premium money with money from other budgets and joining forces with other schools in the area to provide provision (see pages 14/15 in the DoE report). It is probable that the Pupil Premium money brought into schools by white British working-class FSM children is being used, at least in part, to benefit ethnic minorities. The converse is wildly improbable.

Ethnic minorities are concentrated in particular areas and particular schools. This makes it more likely that ethnic children will go to schools with a higher proportion of free school meal pupils than schools dominated by white pupils. That will provide significantly greater funding for an ethnic minority majority school than for one dominated by white Britons, most of whom will not qualify for the Pupil Premium. .

Because ethnic minority families, and especially those of first generation immigrants, are substantially larger on average than those of white Britons, the likelihood of ethnic minority children qualifying for FSM will be greater than it is for white Britons because the larger the family the more likely a child is to qualify for FSM. This will boost the additional money from the pupils premium going to ethnic minority dominated schools.

An example of not-for-profit intervention is the charity Teach First. The select committee report (para 116) describes their work:

The Government’s response to the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission’s first annual report noted that Teach First will be training 1,500 graduates in 2014 to 2015 and placing them in the most challenging schools, and that as of 2014/15 Teach First will be placing teachers in every region of England.

The Teach First website states: “Applicants to our Leadership Development Programme are taken through a rigorous assessment process. We select only those who demonstrate leadership potential, a passion to change children’s lives and the other skills and attributes needed to become an excellent teacher and leader. These participants teach and lead in our partner primary and secondary schools in low-income communities across England and Wales for a minimum of two years, ensuring every child has access to an excellent education.”

Apart from specific programmes such as the Pupil Premium and special training for teachers to prepare them what are euphemistically called “challenging schools” which end up disproportionately favouring ethnic minority pupils, there is also scope within the normal funding of state schools to favour ethnic minorities because head teachers have a good deal of discretion in how funds are spent. That applies with knobs on to Academies and Free Schools.

There is also a considerable difference in funding between the funding of areas with large ethic minority populations, especially black and Asian groups, and areas with largely white populations, for example, between East Anglia and London: “ The government has announced plans to raise per-pupil funding 3.7pc in Norfolk to £4,494, 7pc in Cambridgeshire to £4,225 and 2.5pc in Suffolk to £4,347 next year following a campaign by MPs.

“But councillors have called for a long term overhaul of the funding system, which will still see each student in the county receive around half of the allocation in the City of London, which will get £8,594.55 for each pupil.”

5. The effect of political correctness. With good reason any teacher, and especially white teachers, will be fearful of not seeming to be devoutly political correct. They know they are at the mercy of other teachers , parents and pupils and know that an accusation of racism from any source could well end their teaching career at worst and at best seriously disrupt their lives while a complaint is being investigated. In addition, many teachers will be emotionally attached to political correctness generally and to multiculturalism in particular.

In such circumstances it is reasonable to suspect that teachers in schools with a mix of ethnic minority and white British children will devote more time and patience to ethnic minority pupils than to white children. They may do this without conscious intent, with either fear or the ideological commitment making such a choice seem the natural one.

Such preferential treatment for ethnic minority children is facilitated by the large amount of continuous assessment involved in GCSE. (This is supposedly being reduced but the results of the change has not yet worked through to the end of a GCSE cycle. Teachers routinely help children to re-write work which does not come up to par, in some cases re-doing the work themselves . Teachers have also been caught helping pupils to cheat during exams . The opportunity and the temptation to help ethnic minority children is there and the pressure of political correctness may cause opportunity to become actuality.

6. The disruptive effect on schools of a large number of pupils from different backgrounds with English as a second language, the type of schools where the headmaster boasts “We have 100 languages spoken here”. The most likely white British children to be in such schools are those from the poorest homes which means they qualify as FSM pupils. They will be lost in these Towers of Babel not only because often they will be in the minority, but also because, unlike children with English as a second language or ethnic minority English speakers who will have a good chance of enhanced tuition, the white British FSM pupils will not enjoy such a privilege and may be actually ignored to a large extent because of the desire of the staff to assist ethnic minority children.

7 . The downplaying of British culture. The school curriculum in Britain and especially in England (where the vast majority of the British live) is shaped to reflect the politically correct worldview. This means that ethnic minority culture and history are frequently pushed ahead of British culture and history. The larger the percentage of ethnic minorities in a school, the greater will be the tendency to marginalise the white British pupils, who will almost certainly be drawn largely from those qualifying for FSM. They will be deracinated and become culturally disorientated.

To this school propaganda is added the politically correct and anti-British, anti-white propaganda which is pumped out ceaselessly by mainstream politicians and the media. This will reinforce the idea that being white and British is somehow at best inferior to that of ethnic minority cultures and at worst something to be ashamed of, something to be despised, something which is a danger to its possessor.

Conclusion

As far as the general public is concerned, the Select Committee report is saying the white working-class children – all of them not just those receiving FSM – are doing less well than ethnic minority children. The reason for this is simple, the mainstream media have reported the story in a way which would promote such a belief, both in their headlines and the stories themselves.

A comparison between the white British population as a whole and the ethnic minority populations as a whole would be nearer to reality, but it would still be comparing apples and oranges for the reasons given above. The ethnic minority children would still be likely to have on average parents who would not be representative of the ancestral populations they came from, political correctness would still drive teachers to favour ethnic minority pupils, continuous assessment would still allow teachers to illegally aid ethnic minorities, heads could still decide to divert more funds towards ethnic minorities and the promotion of ethnic minority cultures and history would still exist.

What could be done to remedy matters? Continuous assessment should stop and end of course synoptic exams substituted . Ethnic minority children should not have more spent on them than white British children. School funding in different areas should be broadly similar per capita. British culture and history should be the dominant teaching driver. Political correctness should be removed from the curriculum generally.

As for future studies, these should be controlled in a much more subtle manner than simply using FSM as a criterion. Any study of all or any part of group should control for parents’ education, income, the amount of money spent on each pupil, the teacher pupil ratio, the quality of the teachers and the general facilities of the school.

Those suggestions would not entirely cure the problem, but it would be good start to both getting at the truth and ending the demonization of the white working-class which has gathered pace ever since the Labour Party decided to drop the white working-class as their client base and substitute for them the politically correct groups of gays, feminists and most potently ethnic minorities.

4. Gross interferences with free speech such as those in the 1976 Race Relations Act and 1986 Public Order Act arising from the British elite’s determination and need (from their point of view) to suppress dissent about immigration and its consequences.

7. Such a virulent political correctness, because the central plank of the creed – race – would have been removed or at least made insignificant. Without large numbers of racial and ethnic minorities to either act as the clients of the politically correct or to offer a threat of serious civil unrest to provide the politically correct with a reason to enact authoritarian laws banning free discussion about the effects of immigration, “antiracism” would have little traction. Moreover, without the massive political leverage race has provided, political correctness in its other areas, most notably homosexuality and feminism, would have been much more difficult to inject into British society. But even if political correctness had been robbed of its dominant racial aspect whilst leaving the rest of the ideology as potent as it is now, it would be a trivial thing compared to the ideology with its dominant racial aspect intact. Changes to the status of homosexuals and women do not fundamentally alter the nature of a society by destroying its natural homogeneity. Moreover, customs and laws can always be altered peacefully. A country with large unassimilable minorities cannot be altered peacefully.

10. The creeping introduction of Sharia Law through such things as the toleration of sharia courts to settle disputes between Muslims provided both parties agree. The idea that such agreement is voluntary is highly suspect because of the pressure from within the Muslim population for Muslims to conform to Sharia law and to settle disputes within the Muslim population. But even if it was always entirely voluntary, it would be wrong in principle to have an alien system of law accepted as a rival to the law of the land because inevitably it would undermine the idea of the rule of law and further isolate Muslims from the mainstream. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-politics/10778554/The-feisty-baroness-defending-voiceless-Muslim-women.html

4. No fear of being proud of our country and Western culture generally.

5. No people being sent to prison for simply saying what they thought about race and ethnicity.

6. Much less political correctness.

7. Equality before the law in as far as that is humanly possible.

8. A stable population.

9. Plentiful housing, both rented and for purchase, at a price the ordinary working man or woman can afford.

10. Abundant school places.

11. An NHS with much shorter waiting lists and staffed overwhelmingly with native Britons. Those who claim that the NHS would collapse with foreign staff should ask themselves one question: if that is the case, how do areas of the UK with few racial or ethnic minority people manage to recruit native born Britons to do the work?

12. A higher wage economy .

13. Far more native Britons in employment.

14. No areas of work effectively off limits to white Britons because either an area of work is controlled by foreigners or British born ethnic minorities, both of whom only employ those of their own nationality and/or ethnicity, or unscrupulous British employers who use foreigners and ethnic minorities because they are cheap and easier to control.

The full story is in the correspondence I reproduce below -. However, I realise that you are an immensely busy woman, so to take you to instantly to the heart of the corrupt behaviour of Operation Elveden please read first the attached facsimile letter Piers Morgan sent to the PCC whilst editor of the Daily Mirror. In this letter he admits receiving information from the Metropolitan Police in circumstances which can only be illegal, viz: “The police source of our article (whose identity we have a moral obligation to protect)…”.

The other document you need to read is my initial email (dated 21 January 2013) to the then head of Operation Elveden Deputy Assistant Commissioner Steve Kavanagh – see first document below this letter. That will give you the background to and the range of crimes Elveden are failing to investigate.

I have provided Eleveden with a copy of Morgan’s letter, together with other evidence of criminal behaviour on the part of the Mirror’s erstwhile Chief Crime Reporter Jeff Edwards, in receiving information illicitly from the police. I have also supplied Elveden with evidence that both Morgan and Edwards perjured themselves before the Leveson Inquiry. Finally, there is the misconduct of the police in not investigating these crimes for which they have cast-iron evidence.

Despite having the Piers Morgan letter (amongst other very strong evidence), DI Daniel Smith (see letter dated 13 June 2013) informed me that no investigation would be undertaken without giving any meaningful explanation.

The Metropolitan Police’s ’ Directorate of Professional Standards is now supposedly investigating the failure of Operation Elveden to investigate the crimes I have reported to them. However, they have had my complaint for more than seven months and have not come to a judgement.

As you will see from the correspondence, I have also tried without success to get the DPP to act on what is a clear failure on the part of the police to investigate serious crimes .. They have made the spurious excuse that they cannot direct the police to investigate a complaint. The excuse is spurious because in a recent case of rape they had done just that. That involved Acting Detective Constable Hannah Notley who wilfully mishandled the investigation. After a third party intervened with the CPS the matter was taken up by the police, viz: : “In April 2012, after an independent representative supporting the alleged victim contacted the CPS, Notley finally confessed, and last month admitted a single charge of misconduct in a public office.” (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10500744/Detective-jailed-after-failing-to-investigate-alleged-rape.html).

Since I made my complaint to Eleveden I have not been interviewed by any person from Elveden, the DPS or the CPS, this despite my frequent requests to be interviewed and to give a formal statement. This is a very strong indication that all of those in the police and justice systems who have been involved with the matter know very well that my complaints are exceptionally well founded. They will not meet me because they do not know how to tell me to my face that black is white.

I ask you to take up this matter and to use your influence to get my allegations of criminality investigated thoroughly. I would greatly welcome a meeting with you to discuss the matter.

If the police are not brought to book over this, it will mean they are a law unto themselves.

DCI Neligan’s email to me bears all the hallmarks of having been cobbled together in a tremendous rush, resting as it does very heavily on cut and pasting from the previous correspondence arising from this case and the reiteration of spurious reasons why no investigation is to be made. He rejects my complaints by ignoring the conclusive evidence of both the initial offences of which I complained and my further complaints about the behaviour of Operation Elveden officers who have failed to investigate the clearest of evidence of serious crimes.

On my complaints about Morgan and Edwards receiving information illegally from the Met , DCI Nelligan simply ignores the damming evidence I have supplied, most notably the letter from Morgan to the PCC in which he admits to receiving to receiving information from a Met officer in circumstances which can only have been illegal. With my accusations of perjury by Morgan and Edwards, he unquestioningly accepts Detective Inspector Daniel Smith’s opinion that perjury had not been committed despite the fact that DI Smith provided no meaningful explanation of why he had come to that conclusion. The transcript of the Leveson hearings which I gave to Elveden points very strongly to perjury.

As for D-Supt Jeff Curtis, the fact that he did not interview Morgan, Edwards or anyone else at the Mirror is conclusive evidence of a wilful and criminal failure to investigate. The failure of the then Police Complaints Authority to Act when I complained of Curtis’ failure is clear evidence of a wilful and criminal failure to address my complaint honestly. The refusal of Operation Elveden to start an investigation of D-Supt Curtis when faced with such strong evidence of criminality as the Morgan letter and a tape recording of Curtis promising me that he would interview Morgan is clear evidence of a wilful and criminal failure to act on clear evidence of criminality on Curtis’ part. The failure of the DPP to act on the spurious ground that they cannot direct the police to investigate is clear evidence of a wilful and criminal desire to stop this matter becoming public knowledge.

In short, all DCI Nelligan has done is accept unquestioningly what previous officers and authorities have claimed was the case. He has made no attempt to assess the evidence I have provided.

This scandal comes down in the end to the age old question of who shall guard the guards? At every stage of the complaints I have submitted there has been a wilful determination by those within the police and justice system to ignore evidence which on its own is enough to bring charges. Right from the time I made the initial complaint to the Metropolitan Police (which was eventually dealt with by Jeff Edwards) there has been a failure to investigate not because of an absence of evidence but because of the strength of the evidence and the people involved.

I could get nothing done while Labour was in power because the story behind Morgan’s letter and the Mirror article which led to Morgan writing the letter to the PCC leads ultimately to Tony and Cherie Blair. The Blairs attempted to have me prosecuted on charges , which as lawyers they must have known were bogus, during the 1997 General Election. Having failed ignominiously (the CPS returned the papers marked “No Crime” within hours of receiving them) the Blairs set Special Branch and MI5 on to me (the Mirror article about me fingered Special Branch and using the Data Protection Act – DPA – I subsequently proved that both they and MI5 have files on me). I then suffered ten years of harassment which ranged from death threats to a persistent ostentatious opening of my post. The harassment ceased as soon as Blair left office.

Sounds fantastic? Well, this should dissolve your scepticism. The Conservative MP Sir Richard Body put down this Early Day Motion of my behalf:

CONDUCT OF THE RIGHT HONOURABLE MEMBER FOR SEDGEFIELD 10:11:99

Sir Richard Body

That this House regrets that the Right honourable Member for Sedgefield [Tony Blair] attempted to persuade the Metropolitan Police to bring criminal charges against Robert Henderson, concerning the Right honourable Member’s complaints to the police of an offence against the person, malicious letters and racial insult arising from letters Robert Henderson had written to the Right honourable Member complaining about various instances of publicly-reported racism involving the Labour Party; and that, after the Crown Prosecution Service rejected the complaints of the Right honourable Member and the Right honourable Member failed to take any civil action against Robert Henderson, Special Branch were employed to spy upon Robert Henderson, notwithstanding that Robert Henderson had been officially cleared of any illegal action.

Any prosecution of Morgan and Edwards when I made the original complaint would have caused serious problems for the Blairs. That explains why I could not get the police to act then. The police will not act now, doubtless partly still because of the Blairs’ involvement and that of other powerful people who have come into the story over the course of the past 17 years , but also because of the failure of senior police officers who have comprehensively failed to do their duty.

Please reflect upon this. If you do not act and I get story into the public fold you will have become part of the corrupt behaviour which has been the dominant and persistent feature of this case. Ask yourself how you would stand before the media and explain with a straight face why no investigation was made when the police have the Morgan letter to the PCC.

Is it likely I will get the story out? Well, Piers Morgan lost his CNN job four days after I circulated. to the mainstream media in Britain and the USA his letter to the PCC in facsimile with a covering note – a copy of that email is below DCI Nelligan’s email. I do not like coincidences at the best of times and in particular I do not take to them when the coincidence involves, as this does, a complicated sequence of events to occur if it was just a coincidence.

I call upon you again to act directly as the police are unambiguously refusing to act not because they do not have evidence but because the evidence is hideously dangerous to them.

The British Green Party has put its undemocratic cards blatantly on the table. One of their most recent policy statements is a “ 10 point flood response plan” . Point number three is of especially interest:

Hawkins: “ Every , as this [the 10 point plan] says, senior government advisor who refused to accept the scientific consensus on climate change as you describe it shouldn’t be in their post; every one of them?”

Bennett: “Yes. We need the whole government behind this. This is an emergency situation we’re facing now. We need to take action. We need everyone signed up behind that.”

Hawkins: “ And, I am not reducing this to the absurd; that literally would include every senior government advisor , i.e., it could be the Chief Veterinary Officer ; it could be any advisor whether or not they are directly connected with the issue of flooding? “

Bennett; “Yes.”

Hawkins: “And you would see them removed from their posts?”

Bennett: “We would ask the government to remove them”.

Bennett: “It’s an insult to flood victims that we have an Environment Secretary (Owen Paterson) who is a denier of the reality of climate change and we also can’t have anyone in the cabinet who is denying the realities that we’re facing with climate change.”

This is the voice of the true fanatic, so captured by an ideology that any dissent from the “true way” becomes heresy which must be eradicated. For Bennett it is not enough to have policies implemented , only those who unreservedly support the policies can be tolerated in government even if they are not involved in implementing the policies themselves.

In short, Greens want the debate on man-made global warming to be officially over as far as the government is concerned. They belong to the one class of person who should be denied a public voice, namely the class of those who would deny a public voice to others.

Bennett is a very odd sort of public campaigner. I know her personally because we were both members of a group trying to stop a laboratory handling dangerous toxins being built in the centre of London next to St Pancras station. (The site is approximately 100 feet from my front window).

Because all the major Westminster parties were wildly in favour of the project the only chance of stopping it was to show was to show that the bidding process was tainted. This I did comprehensively using the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to obtain documents which showed unambiguously that Gordon Brown had illegally interfered with the bidding process. Further details including the Brown documents can be found at https://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2012/09/09/the-new-leader-of-the-greens-knows-how-to-keep-mum/

Despite being a Guardian journalist with ready access to the media, Bennett refused to use the material and the campaign comprehensively failed because it was reduced to using bog-standard street politics: going on marches, making banners, sending deputations to the local council and so on.

Why wouldn’t Bennett use my FOIA material? I could never get a meaningful answer out of her. All she would say was that it wasn’t of public interest, a self-evident absurdity as it not only struck directly at the sale of the land, but was of general public interest because a Prime Minister had interfered in a bidding process for an enterprise he favoured. On the face of it the story appeared to be right up the Guardian’s street.

Perhaps she refused to use the material because she could not claim the information as her own. Surprisingly for a journalist she made no attempt to use the FOIA herself to aid that campaign.

Over the past two days I have sent the following to some 200 individual mediafolk and media outlets. The email addresses are at the bottom of the email – these are all emails which did not produce a bounce so you should be able to use them if you wish to.

———————————————————————————————————————————–

My name is Robert Henderson. Over a year ago I supplied the Metropolitan police with unequivocal evidence that Piers Morgan when Daily Mirror editor received information from one or more of their officers in circumstances which can only have been illegal. That evidence is in a letter from Morgan to the Press complaints Commission in which he writes”The police source of our article (whose identity we have a moral obligation to protect)”. The letter is in text form below and in facsimile form in the attached file Morganletterscan.docx . Please ask Hogan-Howe why this is not being investigated.

The accusations of criminal behaviour made against me by Morgan in the letter are a tissue of lies. The reality of my dealings with the Blairs is neatly précised in an Early Day Motion put down by Sir Richard Body:

10 November 1999

CONDUCT OF THE RIGHT HONOURABLE MEMBER FOR SEDGEFIELD 10:11:99

Sir Richard Body

That this House regrets that the Right honourable Member for Sedgefield [Tony Blair] attempted to persuade the Metropolitan Police to bring criminal charges against Robert Henderson, concerning the Right honourable Member’s complaints to the police of an offence against the person, malicious letters and racial insult arising from letters Robert Henderson had written to the Right honourable Member complaining about various instances of publicly-reported racism involving the Labour Party; and that, after the Crown Prosecution Service rejected the complaints of the Right honourable Member and the Right honourable Member failed to take any civil action against Robert Henderson, Special Branch were employed to spy upon Robert Henderson, notwithstanding that Robert Henderson had been officially cleared of any illegal action.

I refer to Mr Henderson’s complaint as outlined in his letter of 23 September.

As you are aware, we have been in contact with Mr Henderson for some time due to his propensity to bombard individuals and this office with correspondence. There are certain irrefutable facts that escape emphasis in Mr Henderson’s correspondence.

Far from ignoring any of his correspondence we have written to him on the 20 May, 22 July and 6 August We have consistently made it clear that we have no intention of entering into any further correspondence with him.

Be that as it may I will address his concerns:-

In essence, the basic “sting” of the article, of which he complains, was that he had been sending numerous insulting letters, some with racist undertones, to Mr and Mrs Blair which had been passed to the Crown Prosecution Service for consideration.

Mr Henderson himself admits that he sent Mr and Mrs Blair at least thirteen letters. I have no way of directly knowing of the content of those letters because I have not had sight of them. However, clearly they sufficiently concerned Mr Blair’s office to be passed to the Crown Prosecution Service and I think the Commission is perfectly entitled to draw an adverse inference on the contents of those letters as a result of that referral.

In Mr Henderson’s draft article “Moral Simpletons Target Innocent Man” the bile that he shows on the second page of that article clearly illustrates his capacity to insult in his letters to Mr and Mrs Blair (to the extent that they be referred to the Crown Prosecution Service). I would also refer the Commission to Mr Henderson’s gratuitous reference to a “Blaireich”.

He also admits to expressing his disgust (we can only guess in what terms) of the decision of Mr and Mrs Blair not to send their son to a school whereby a white schoolboy was, apparently, murdered by five other boys (and that that murder was racially motivated).

The police source of our article (whose identity we have a moral obligation to protect) gave us the detail of the letters that we then published. Nothing that Mr Henderson writes has convinced me that the article was anything other than accurate.

Perhaps one can get a flavour of his correspondence with Mr and Mrs Blair by examining the final sentence of his draft article in which he states “It was a cargo of ancient male gonads”.

The Commission may be aware (I am attempting to get hold of the article) that the article of Mr Henderson’s that appeared in Wisden’s Cricket Monthly in 1995 gave rise to an extraordinary amount of controversy and resulted in Wisden paying substantial libel damages to the Cricketer, Devon Malcolm, whom the Commission will be aware is a coloured fast bowler for England. As I understand the matter, and Mr Henderson will correct me if I am wrong, the article implied that coloured players will not try as hard when playing for England as white players.

I have discussed the legal position with the newspaper’s solicitor, Martin Cruddace , and he has assured me that the law has recently developed whereby words (be they written or spoken) can constitute assault if the pattern of those words is such as to make the recipient of them either anxious or ill. It has developed as a reaction to the former impotence of the law on stalking.

The law has therefore developed since the publication of the dictionary reference on which Mr Henderson relies.

I cannot accept that the taking of the photographs of Mr Henderson, given the clear public interest concerning the subject matter of The Mirror article, could possibly constitute harassment under the Code.

I am most concerned not to waste any further time in dealing with Mr Henderson’s complaint but, naturally, if the Commission wishes me to address any further matters then I will endeavour to do so.

However, I hope that the above is sufficient to convince the Commission that the basic “sting” of the article is accurate and that Mr Henderson’s complaint ought to be dismissed.